TiVo should take it upon themselves to develop an AllVid type device to show the industry how it could be done. They could move all the tuners and the CableCARD(s) into a centralized network device, ala the HDHomeRun Prime, then create DVRs and Minis that could access those tuners as needed. By moving the tuners into a central box like that they could also allow users to mix cable and OTA, or switch between them, without having to replace the entire DVR. They might also be able to exploit their relationship with DirecTV and develop a gateway for them as well, creating a unified experience for all users. And if these cable companies get their way and are allowed to deploy proprietary downloadable security systems then TiVo could simply offer different gateways for the various standards rather then having to offer complete DVRs for each market.

DirecTV wants nothing to do with TiVo. They released the most crippled and junky TiVo they could to fulfill their settlement with TiVo, knowing full well that almost no one would buy the turd. They lost money on it, but to protect their Genie, it's a small price for them to pay...

Comcast is very friendly to TiVo, they must have found that they are getting enough VOD traffic to make rolling out more VOD support worth it. Not that it takes much with the margins on the rentals...

If they have enough TiVo users, then they also want to keep those users around. They know many of them, like myself, would leave for DirecTV if they killed TiVo off. DirecTV must not see a large enough market to support TiVo in a meaningful way. If they sold a little box that connected my TiVo to SWiM 8 through Ethernet, I would jump to DirecTV in a second. More channels, more HD's, better PQ, and my TiVo would magically get bigger!

I think the bigger risk in the near term is that cable starts using IP distribution for channels that would previously have been SDV, keeping a core lineup on linear QAM, and putting another 100+ obscure HD channels on MPEG-4 or HEVC IP, and they don't let TiVo in on the code to "read" the IP streams. FIOS is probably the biggest risk, since they already have an IP system in place, boxes that support IP distribution, a maxed out 860mhz QAM system and a metric @$$load of IP bandwidth to play with. However, most content would still be accessible to a TiVo, and people could, in theory, have a FIOS DVR and a TiVo, and use the FIOS DVR for the occasional thing on one of the IP channels that the TiVo can't get. As it is, it's that way it is now for VOD.

I don't forsee an actual switch to IP for a long, long time. QAM is here and it works.MPEG-4 is the next step for the cable companies. And MPEG-4 works with Premiere and later TiVos, so that's not an issue.

I think the bigger risk in the near term is that cable starts using IP distribution for channels that would previously have been SDV, keeping a core lineup on linear QAM, and putting another 100+ obscure HD channels on MPEG-4 or HEVC IP, and they don't let TiVo in on the code to "read" the IP streams. FIOS is probably the biggest risk, since they already have an IP system in place, boxes that support IP distribution, a maxed out 860mhz QAM system and a metric @$$load of IP bandwidth to play with. However, most content would still be accessible to a TiVo, and people could, in theory, have a FIOS DVR and a TiVo, and use the FIOS DVR for the occasional thing on one of the IP channels that the TiVo can't get. As it is, it's that way it is now for VOD.

That's the beauty of switching to a gateway model. The gateway is rented from the cable company so it doesn't matter how the channels are delivered to it, as long as they are converted to a standard IP stream on the way out. In that case a device like a TiVo would just send the channel request to the gateway, the gateway would tune it using whatever technology it wanted, and then start streaming it to the TiVo via standard IP. In theory even a current gen TiVo could be adapted to this model. They have gigabit ethernet and MoCa built in, the rest could theoretically be done via software.

I think the biggest hurdle for TiVo would be scheduling. Since the TiVo wouldn't really know ahead of time how many tuners will be available from the gateway at a given time, maintaining the To Do List and prompting about scheduling conflicts might be impossible. Having all the tuners internal to the TiVo makes that a lot easier to manage. But it's not insurmountable.

Another thing I'm unsure about is whether or not these these gateway devices are stackable. Assuming each one has 6 tuners people may need more then one to meet all their tuner needs. I'm also not sure if in a situation like that if the player/DVR would need to be paired to a specific gateway or if all the tuners from multiple gateways would be pooled together with each device having the ability to grab a tuner from whichever gateway has one available. I think the later would be a better option, but I haven't read the complete spec so I'm not exactly sure how it's designed to work.

The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.

That's the beauty of switching to a gateway model. The gateway is rented from the cable company so it doesn't matter how the channels are delivered to it, as long as they are converted to a standard IP stream on the way out. In that case a device like a TiVo would just send the channel request to the gateway, the gateway would tune it using whatever technology it wanted, and then start streaming it to the TiVo via standard IP. In theory even a current gen TiVo could be adapted to this model. They have gigabit ethernet and MoCa built in, the rest could theoretically be done via software.

I think the biggest hurdle for TiVo would be scheduling. Since the TiVo wouldn't really know ahead of time how many tuners will be available from the gateway at a given time, maintaining the To Do List and prompting about scheduling conflicts might be impossible. Having all the tuners internal to the TiVo makes that a lot easier to manage. But it's not insurmountable.

Another thing I'm unsure about is whether or not these these gateway devices are stackable. Assuming each one has 6 tuners people may need more then one to meet all their tuner needs. I'm also not sure if in a situation like that if the player/DVR would need to be paired to a specific gateway or if all the tuners from multiple gateways would be pooled together with each device having the ability to grab a tuner from whichever gateway has one available. I think the later would be a better option, but I haven't read the complete spec so I'm not exactly sure how it's designed to work.

True. It would also put U-Verse and satellite on a level playing field. The ultimate would be a DVR and network that could integrate a lineup with multiple gateways. Say a gateway for OTA, a gateway for FIOS TV with QAM and IP, and then a gateway for some international channels through DISH... it would be nirvana for TiVo!

Yes, the existing TiVos, at least Roamio and Premiere, should be software upgradable. For FIOS, for example, if they were smart enough, they could keep CableCard tuners, but know that certain channels are IP-only and have to requested through the gateway. Or for Roamio Basic, OTA on the roamio, and pay TV through a gateway. For scheduling, there would either have to be a way to schedule tuners ahead of time, a way to put a lock on tuners (this would only work for 1 DVR and some boxes with live TV only), or you would have to hard assign tuners to certain hardware, so that there'd be a gateway, a central server (like a TiVo Roamio Pro), and then the clients (i.e. TiVo Mini).

Pooling tuners shouldn't be that hard, as long as one box owns the management of the whole network, and would be scalable to some number of tuners, say 18 or 24 tuners. Of course some services, like U-Verse (4) or DirecTV (8 for a SWiMline setup) could only support a certain number of tuners. Where it would get really murky is a FIOS type system if it has a limit for the number of IP streams, but unlimited QAM streams, and has some channels IP-only, and some QAM. Then the programming on the DVR side would get really squirrely if you have channels that are available through both an OTA gateway and a FIOS gateway, but you prefer to get them through FIOS, but then if it needs to "reclaim" tuners for cable channels, it would have to be smart enough to "offload" one or more of the local channel needs at that time to the OTA tuners...

The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.

But that's not the law. The content producers get some control of what you do with their content. The DMCA, for instance, guarantees that. If you want to argue that the law should be changed, that's fine. But arguing that other folks should break the law because you don't like it seems unhelpful.

True. It would also put U-Verse and satellite on a level playing field. The ultimate would be a DVR and network that could integrate a lineup with multiple gateways. Say a gateway for OTA, a gateway for FIOS TV with QAM and IP, and then a gateway for some international channels through DISH... it would be nirvana for TiVo!

Yes, the existing TiVos, at least Roamio and Premiere, should be software upgradable. For FIOS, for example, if they were smart enough, they could keep CableCard tuners, but know that certain channels are IP-only and have to requested through the gateway. Or for Roamio Basic, OTA on the roamio, and pay TV through a gateway. For scheduling, there would either have to be a way to schedule tuners ahead of time, a way to put a lock on tuners (this would only work for 1 DVR and some boxes with live TV only), or you would have to hard assign tuners to certain hardware, so that there'd be a gateway, a central server (like a TiVo Roamio Pro), and then the clients (i.e. TiVo Mini).

Pooling tuners shouldn't be that hard, as long as one box owns the management of the whole network, and would be scalable to some number of tuners, say 18 or 24 tuners. Of course some services, like U-Verse (4) or DirecTV (8 for a SWiMline setup) could only support a certain number of tuners. Where it would get really murky is a FIOS type system if it has a limit for the number of IP streams, but unlimited QAM streams, and has some channels IP-only, and some QAM. Then the programming on the DVR side would get really squirrely if you have channels that are available through both an OTA gateway and a FIOS gateway, but you prefer to get them through FIOS, but then if it needs to "reclaim" tuners for cable channels, it would have to be smart enough to "offload" one or more of the local channel needs at that time to the OTA tuners...

I don't see one device having control over the tuner pool. Or there being a way to dedicate tuners to a specific device. I see it more as the gateway(s) having complete control over their tuners and the devices sending requests to the gateway(s) for a tuner when one is needed. The gateway would then either return the requested stream or an error if no tuner was available. I could see there being some sort of a "pre-request" system where a device sends a request to the gateway say 5 minutes before it's needed to ensure it'll be available. The gateway could then prompt all active tuners with a message "this tuner is needed for device X at 8:00pm do you want to relinquish the tuner?" with the default answer being yes if there is no reply within a given amount of time. However a system like that would make scheduling tricky because the DVR would have no idea if a tuner would be available or not ahead of time.

To make it work well they would need to add some sort of scheduling system to the gateway itself. Something where a DVR could request a tuner 10-12 days in advance and be guaranteed that it will be available when the time arrives. Although that wouldn't be all that difficult either. Not sure if that's part of CPV-2 though.

The DTCP-IP system uses MPEG-DASH by default, which is very similar to the HLS system they currently use for the TiVo Stream. I doubt it would be hard to create a TiVo Stream type device.

There is also nothing preventing TiVo from submitting their own encryption scheme to the DLNA ti get approval for storage. Their scheme has already been approved by CableLabs so I doubt it would be rejected by the DLNA.

I'm surprised to AACS on that list since it was cracked years ago. That's what's used on BluRays and broken by programs like AnyDVD.

Windows Media DRM 10 can actually be licensed from MS, and is approved for both storage and playback protection, so if this catches on we may actually see 3rd party Windows DVR software again. Probably not open source, but paid options from 3rd parties should be possible.

CVP-2 uses HTML5 RUI (Remote User Interface), which enables a service provider UI to be displayed on a remote device. A client device ‘discovers’ a server (like a DVR in the home) and then uses a URL to retrieve and render a user interface, which could be the Pay TV programme guide or an operator VOD portal, for example, on the secondary device. The UI is treated like a website, in effect, hosted on a server and displayed on the client.

The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.

On Brighthouse or Time Warner? LOL that's funny, you're a day late on April Fools.

Here is my fear with respect to CVP-2... we might be saddled by our subscription TV providers UI.

Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.

I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.

The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

In my opinion the Networks and advertisers killed their own system when they moved an hour show from being 52 minutes long to 42 minutes long. If anyone really believe that people without DVRs actually sit there and watch 18 minutes of commercials in an hour, then I have some great swamp land they can invest in. While I am not a fan of advertisements Hulu has it right the commercial breaks are short enough so you really can not do anything else so you end up watching them.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

I suspect ads would have to become interactive. Maybe role playing games where your objective is to buy a new car and use it to get lunch at a fast food place then go to the mall :-).

Or maybe you have to take a quiz at the end of your infomercial and your score is used to decide how many credits you get...

Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.

I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.

I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.

The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.

The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.

I understand the concern and hope the providers do not try to assert themselves into the UI for 3rd party components. However, knowing that the AllVid spec request by the FCC was intended for an open spec and that CVP-2 is the industries response to the request, I believe the probability of the providers controlling the UI 3rd party components is low. Unfortunately, its not zero.

I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.

The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.

If only I could figure out how to get there from here :-).

NO! That ads would be super targeted, like online ads. I don't want to see ads for some product I just bought for 3 weeks like I do online. I like seeing general interest ads that are targeted to the average person watching the show, not to ME. I'm not a tinfoil hat, I don't mind transmitting data to whoever wants to use it in a big data set, but I just find it annoying as hell to have the same ads over and over again like online.

I wish every provider would just license the real TiVo interface from TiVo, and then we wouldn't have this problem! Of course, that wouldn't get us actually owning the hardware...

Can you explain this in english to me please? I looked at it and was confused.

It's related to the DLNA CVP-2 article posted earlier in this thread. It appears that DLNA will be the standard that MSOs need to comply with for their set-top boxes. This will theoretically allow a 3rd party "certified" retail box to connect to a cable provided box and receive video services.

I described it this way over on the investment board,

Quote:

Essentially, the IP Output Rule requires all MSOs to enable "gateway" functionality on their boxes to allow 3rd party (i.e., retail) to access cable TV video services. It appears that we are going down the path of DLNA being the standards-based mechanism to get this done. If this is implemented properly, you would theoretically be able to get one gateway box from your cable operator and light-up any number of retail devices (e.g., Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, XBox, ...) in your home with cable TV services. The big question is how consistently this will be implemented by the MSOs. The DLNA profiles allow things like hijacking of the 3rd party screen so essentially you might be forced to use the cable operators user interface to access their services. This is currently an option in the DLNA specification. Its really unclear how this will play out but it could be a step in the right direction for retail access to cable services. The question in my mind is how well will it work. This could be like MSO provided Tuning Adapters for Switched Digital Video (SDV) that are finally working well today many years after they were introduced. This new rule does nothing related to the CableCARD status quo at this point but I'm somewhat optimistic that the FCC's Media Burea's chief appeared to be on the side of TiVo in the most recent hearings in the US Senate.

I'm sure Dan or some others can jump in here and explain it better than me.

In the latest exchange of comments to the FCC, the principal trade association of the U.S. Cable Industry aggressively attacks TiVo's stance on CableCARD. From a retail CableCARD user perspective, TiVo's stance IS in the consumers best interest. The NCTA is essentially arguing that the cable industry and MVPDs will innovate on their own to provide access to their member(s) signals on 3rd party devices. We've seen many examples where this isn't the case but they continue to argue the point.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”) hereby replies to comments filed in response to Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.’s (“Buckeye’s”) request for waiver of the “integration ban” in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules – the rule which requires cable operators to use separate security (e.g., CableCARDs) in their leased set-top boxes. While expressing sympathy for a smaller operator seeking to adopt more advanced technology, TiVo, Inc. (“TiVo”) urges the Commission to block those advances. TiVo’s approach would impede innovation to the detriment of Buckeye’s customers, and should be rejected. The Commission should grant Buckeye’s waiver request.

Quote:

Today, the market is already delivering a wide variety of innovative video platforms and interfaces. As the Commission noted in its last Video Competition Report, “the CPE marketplace is more dynamic than it has ever been, offering consumers an unprecedented and growing list of choices to access video content.”20 Cable operators have been key actors in facilitating these marketplace developments by making their services available on a broad and growing array of consumer electronics devices. Numerous cable operators are delivering cable services to iOS and Android tablets and smartphones, PCs and Macs, and game consoles and other video devices, and that trend is accelerating to meet consumer demand for these options. The relative paucity of retail CableCARD devices and the cornucopia of other video devices on which consumers are enjoying cable programming is unequivocal testimony that allowing the marketplace to offer a diversity of approaches is far more successful than attempting to prescribe a uniform government-mandated technology.

It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.

It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.

They are heading down the path that requires an MSO gateway leased device in every home complying with the IP Output rule. The gateway MSO device supports proprietary encryption on a provider-by-provider basis. Any 3rd party device will need to connect to the IP side of the device.